Democracy at Work -- Meeting Notes (April 14, 2019)

1. Disclaimer and Remarks of Reporter

This meeting by telephone conference of Democracy at Work (D@W) was
scheduled for 7:00 pm Eastern Time on Sunday, April 14, 2019. However,
there were technical problems which resulted in participants,
including myself, being disconnected from the call on various
occasions. Thus I missed about 20 minutes of the early portion of the
meeting, during which I was unable to reconnect (a problem also
reported by others); and also had problems at times with noise either
from static or the like or possibly from activities taking place near
some of the telephones connected to the conference line.

Also, fair disclosure requires my acknowledgement that I am member of
the group Mujeres Libres, which introduced a proposal for a Women's
Caucus or Women's Section within D@W. As it became clear through frank
and sometimes passionate discussion, this proposal might well be
incompatible with the previously established structure of D@W as
reflected, for example, by its Bill of Solidarity, a critically
important founding document. I will strive my best to report this
discussion as fairly and impartially as possible.

-- Margo Schulter, reporter


2. Beginning of Meeting -- Introduction to D@W Party

After a period of informal introductions and greetings to give people
an opportunity to join the call, the meeting proper began around 7:25
pm Eastern Time. Vasil opened the discussion by explaining the focus
of D@W on the structure of organization and democracy in the
workplace. In Yugoslavia, for example, the workers elected
representatives. A concern is that board members of big companies tend
to become oligarchs.

In cooperatives, a style of organization favored by D@W, class
consciousness evolves in good part from control of the surplus. This
is in fact how the bourgeoisie developed class consciousness during
the later stages of feudalism: through control of a production
surplus, although subject to some taxes of the like going to the
aristocracy, and consequent recognition of common class interests.

It is much the same with workers in cooperatives, where the production
surplus is subject to democratic control. Thus the D@W Party focuses
on labor associations.

Vasil also focused on acceptable individual forms of labor which are
consistent with the program of implementing socialism as defined by
the D@W Party. [Interestingly, the provision for individual producers
who do not exploit labor is reminiscent of a similar provision
announced by the Kronstadt Commune in early 1921 before its bloody
suppression by the Bolsheviks -- M.S.]

There was discussion about dividing lines between D@W as a socialist
party and the Democratic Party. One of these dividing lines is
"independence from capitalism." A maternity program addressing the
career needs of women who choose to have children is a central concern
of D@W, in contrast to the main focus of a feminist group aligned with
the Democratic Party such as Emily's List on "abortion" (apart from
the larger context of women's position in capitalist society) and
"getting wealthy women elected."

A basic position of the D@W approach to bringing about socialism is
that taking from a "private entity" in order to give to another
"private entity" is wrong, in contrast to "reforms that produce class
consciousness."

Thus D@W does not support food stamp programs, which give food stamps
to private entities (individual consumers) in order to purchase food
from other private entities (e.g. grocery stores). In contrast,
affirming the right to form cooperatives, and public banking, are
reforms that lead toward socialism, and directly empower communities.

Equality of opportunity is a central principle of D@W. The use of
class analysis is also a central principle and commitment.

The concept of negative checks -- preventing the wrong things from
happening, as opposed to trying to direct in advance exactly what
should happen within the scope of the organization's structure and
guidelines -- is also critically important. This is in contrast to
other parties, which attempt to enforce positive steps toward
equality. The negative checks of D@W, for example, would exclude from
office any candidate who discriminates on the basis of "race, sex,
gender, or religion." The prohibition of discrimination by either
"sex" or "gender" was noted -- provisions which together address both
discrimination against women generally, and discrimination because of
"gender" identity or expression against trans or nonbinary people, for
example, many of whom are also women.

The purpose of these policies is to deal with issues in a "responsible
way." People join because they support some messages. Equality of
opportunity is not a liberal principle. However, in Vasil's view,
"issues based on identity" tend at once to divide a socialist party or
organization into contending subcommunities or factions, and to make
equality concerns of a kind compatible with a liberal form of
capitalism the main focus. The situation in Democratic Socialists of
America (DSA) may illustrate where such trends can lead.


3. Some Alternative Views -- The Issue of a Women's Caucus/Section
 
Catty-Anne McCloskey at this point replied to Vasil's analysis of
"issues based on identity" by asserting "the limits of male social
change." Her claim was that unless a socialist movement takes positive
measures to achieve the equal representation and participation of
women, patriarchy will prevail by default.

In reply, Vasil and others championing the D@W approach pointed to a
requirement that "every meeting address class and social equality,"
the latter absolutely including the equality of women, as well as
racial equality and other aspects of "social equality."

Further, Vasil pointed to a central concern raised by a requirement
for "identity commissions" within a socialist party -- which, in his
view, would lead from a Women's Caucus or Section to "136 such
commissions," again raising questions both of fragmentation within the
organization and a shift of focus away from the main purpose of
instituting socialism.

For Vasil, such "identity commissions" would also compromise the axiom
that "unions can represent their members," and that "all forms of
identity" (from the perspective of a socialist structure for society)
"are based on association of labor." Thus it is vital that workers who
share the same trade and workplace can represent each other, without a
requirement that they belong to the same "identity" group (e.g. only
women representing women, etc.).

Vasil spoke further on the DSA situation, and its identity commissions
or groups: there is "always friction between them." In contrast,
according to Vasil, "what we say" is that "the women's movement is
strong." Unfortunately, the Democratic Party and Emily's List are
focusing on abortion and the interests of women in the upper classes,
as opposed to issues of "maternity capital," the unrecognized and
unpaid labor of women, and the situation of women who must raise
children alone.

At this point, I mentioned that the role of women's often unrecognized
reproductive labor is very important to inclusive radical feminism, a
line of thought I consider highly compatible with socialist feminism. 
[For more on this theme, one good source available on the web is Diana
Leonard and Lisa Adkins, eds., _Sex in Question: French Materialist
Feminism_.]

Catty-Anne expressed her view that "mansplaining" was taking place: a
process by which men tend to dominate a conversation and "explain
things" to women which are already obvious to them. She felt that
women were not taking an equal role in the discussion, illustrating
the need for positive measures to achieve this.

Curtis Reed replied that Vasil was trying to explain the structure and
organizational processes of D@W. He also cited cases where certain
"equality" concerns could be raised for purposes quite in tension with
democracy and socialism. Thus he cited "pro-Black" rhetoric of the
Duvalier dictatorship in Haiti, and observed that those raising
anti-racist or feminist concerns can still be "class traitors" to the
interest of working People of Color or women. For example, Hillary
Clinton, although voicing feminist concerns, has betrayed the
interests of poor and working women.

Vasil again stressed his point of the harm done if in "any cooperative
structure, workers cannot represent workers" (because of some
"identity" criterion requiring that only women represent women,
etc.). He also observed that feminism is listed as a purpose of the
D@W Party.

Someone asked: "Is it possible to say that D@W is focused on class
analysis?" In the early 1900's, Karl Kautsky focused on social
democracy and a political organization.

More questions were raised about socialist feminism. On a related
equality concern, someone noted that D@W has a "Press Release on
Racial Inequality."

I commented that in a true workers' democracy, women would have issues
address, and that I understood the concept of negative checks. The
open question was whether such checks would prove sufficient, or
whether positive measures to ensure women's equality representation
and participation were also needed.

Vasil voiced a concern that in order for D@W to be effective, the
objectives of a feminist caucus would have to appeal to the public.
Unfortunately, this would "not necessarily" happen. In practice, as
suggested by the experiences of other organizations, a feminist caucus
might either represent "extreme" views which would not promote class
consciousness and workers' democracy; or else some kind of a lowest
common denominator of bourgeois reform. Either or both problems can
apply to various kinds of "specific group(s)" or caucuses.

Faye argued in favor of a Women's Caucus or Section that those who
experience a given oppression (such as patriarchy and sexism against
women) are best equipped to address it. The people most familiar with
an oppression are those experiencing it daily -- as women do.

The question again was raised of collective bargaining, where it is
assumed that workers can represent other workers. For example, can
only a Black female represent another Black female?

At this point, someone invoked a favorite phrase of certain social
justice movements: "Check your privilege." The meaning seems to be
that men, who have privileges under patriarchy, ought to be aware of
this advantage and lending more encouragement to women to speak up and
present a different perspective.

Someone supporting the established structure of D@W called for "some
understanding" of "why we don't want to get into that" (i.e. identity
commissions) again.

Vasil again observed that every meeting will address class and social
equality. A Women's Caucus would predictably lead to "identity
committees" with negative consequences for a socialist movement.

There was another mention of women's unpaid labor -- an issue that
could be raised on various "sides" of the Women's Caucus debate. Some
women in the group raised it to argue that classic "class analysis"
might not capture some important aspects of women's oppression. 
Supporters of the current D@W structure and program, in contrast,
raised it to argue that many women's political caucuses and committees
were not speaking effectively for the poorest and most oppressed
women, as opposed to those of the most influential political groups
under capitalism.

Catty-Anne, at this point, objected to what she as a conversation
where men were doing most of the talking on an issue concerning women:
"Comrades, I object."

Curtis took the view that the issue is not "different identities," but
rather "achieving victory." Curtis (or possibly another speaker) held
that identity arguments may lead to conflicts and resentments among
people sharing common class interests. The result is that "no one is
liberated."

Faye took the view that people who experience issues could advise a
socialist movement of which they are part as to these issues and
solutions. 

Someone made a statement about the problem of pregnancy (as it affects
women's jobs, wages, and careers), the committee level, and reporting
problems (maybe within the established D@W structure).

Vasil returned to the matter of the D@W position on racial issues, and
the role of focus groups in identifying the kinds of issues that will
lead poor and working class people to join a socialist movement. 
"Identity commissions" tend to attract people who don't represent the
overall population, and to come up with things that the mainstream
won't support.

Representative surveys are important. The D@W position on the issue of
racial equality has developed over a period of two years, and does
well with focus groups of women.


4. Discussion of the Haudenosaunee or Six Nations

Curtis and Rick turned to a very important example for socialism and
feminism alike: the Haudenosaunee or Six Nations (with various English
spellings in use), often known as the Iroquoian Confederacy. These two
speakers emphasized that the Haudenosaunee [literally the "Longhouse,"
with each Nation envisioned as a "hearth" within the structure of the
Confederacy -- M.S.] was an alliance or union of different groups,
national and otherwise, which "worked out very well."

[The Haudenosaunee was formed at some point before the Columbus
encounter of 1492, which quickly led to the Columbus invasion and
atrocities against the Taino Nation and other Indigenous Nations. The
original union consisted of the Five Nations: the Kanienkehaka or
Mohawk; Oneida; Onondaga; Cayuga; and Seneca. The Onondaga, for
example, with their central location, where the "Firetenders" or
parliamentary hosts of gatherings addressing the common concerns of
the Confederacy. Around 1722, the Tuscarora sought and received asylum
and membership within the Haudenosaunee, which thus became the Six
Nations. Women's rights to bodily integrity and property, and also the
power of the Matron's Council to impeach officeholders who abuse their
power, are integral to the Great Law of Peace which governs the
Haudenosaunee. Both Indigenous scholars of the Haudenosaunee and other
feminist allies have shown that the Great Law of Peace influenced the
Constitution of the USA -- but with the critical flaw of Euro-American
institutions in omitting these basic guarantees of women's rights!

[In the 19th century, Engels in his study of the family drew on the
Haudenosaunee as a society based on women's equality, informed by the
anthropology and social theory of Lewis Morgan; and feminists such as
Matilda Joslyn Gage allied themselves with this nonpatriarchal
culture, with Gage ultimately being adopted under the Great Law of
Peace into the Wolf Clan of the Kanienkehaka (Mohawk) Nation, where
she was given the name Karonienhawi, which may be translated as "Sky
Carrier" or "She Who Holds Up the Sky." -- M.S.]


5. Further Discussion on the Women's Caucus:
   An Ethics Committee Proposed as Compromise Solution

A speaker favoring the D@W structure as outlined in the Bill of
Solidarity, maybe Vasil, argued that caucuses tend to give "more
weight to fringe elements.

Catty-Anne disputed this, and [my notes are not clear -- M.S.] may
have argued that she is not aware of any example where the presence of
a Woman's Caucus or Section was the caucus of the alleged bad
consequences argued by Vasil and others.

At this point, the D@W principle of negative checks was proposed as a
compromise, and more specifically the addition of an Ethics Committee
as an extra negative check and "sufficient" remedy.

Noemi asked if the proposed Ethics Committee would address "issues
affecting minorities and women."

The answer (from Vasil?) was, "No," the Ethics Committee would address
"any issue where an officer fails to meet the standards" -- here, for
example, the standards for nondiscrimination by race, sex, gender, or
religion. The Ethics Committee would not be appointed or selected
"based on identity."

The Ethics Committee was thus proposed as a compromise and an
alternative to a Woman's Caucus or Section, seen as one aspect of a
"failure in methodology in various groups" (i.e. "identity
committees").

Vasil described the Ethics Committee as "a compromise I'm willing to
accept." He asserted that "there is no contradiction between the
interests of men and women."

Faye at this point asked for a clarification of the concept of
"negative checks."

Vasil replied that negative checks "prevent things rather than mandate
things." What is allowed is based on a united method, as decided by the
community at large. [Ideally, within a party such as D@W, decisions
would by made by sociocracy or consensus, although in some situations
democracy or majority decisionmaking could be used where necessary --
M.S.]

Faye argued that rights and responsibilities are both relevant.

Catty-Anne asked Faye to explain more about responsibilities.

Faye began to answer, and at this point there may have noise problems
of the like on the conference line.


6. Noemi's Concern: 
   Would Omitting a Women's Caucus Fail to Meet Women's Needs?

Noemi expressed a concern that negative checks do not prevent
inequalities such as a lack of full participation by women if the
oppressive patterns are not recognized.

Someone [Vasil?] argued that if someone fails to meet the D@W
standards for nondiscrimination, "block them from the National
Committee [or National Board? --M.S.]."

Noemi spoke of "my hesitations" because of "fear of it not working in
favor of women" if there were "only negative checks."

Frank addressed the Ethics Committee proposal, and either he or
another speaker asserted that "women are a class."

Faye said that she had "the same concerns" as Noemi. She also
suggested that a Women's Caucus or Section could play an "advisory"
role in terms of bringing women's concerns to the attention of the D@W
party or movement as a whole.

Vasil replied that "advisory is not better." There would still be the
same problems associated with "identity commissions."

Rick replied that "surely we can be intelligent" and use our
collective wisdom "to avoid such outcomes" (for example, "extremism"
inconsistent with the goals and methods of D@W).


7. International Working Women's Day (IWWD);
   More on Haudenosaunee and Women as a Class

Catty-Anne spoke from the perspective of socialist practice and
precedent. International Working Women's Day is "our heritage tied up
with women putting forth our own demands." She noted that in 1910, a
year after the first IWWD, the Socialist Party of America (SPA)
endorsed IWWD.

Vasil argued that this ultimately led to a "predictable outcome," a
shift in the meaning of IWWD from an event oriented to women as
workers engaged in the struggle for socialism, to one focused on women
(e.g. recently in Russia) apart from this context of class
consciousness and socialism.

Rick spoke again to the Haudenosaunee, observing that women have had a
special role in governance. Women are a class. Traditional societies
have gender groupings, with binary (i.e. women/men) the most common,
but various Indigenous and other traditional societies having three or
more such sex/gender categories. [In recent decades, many Indigenous
Nations and activists have used the term "Two-Spirit" as a generalized
or "placeholder" term to embrace the hundreds or thousands of
nonbinary sex/gender categories in a wealth of Nations and languages,
which are always preferable when known, while avoiding some
inappropriate or even insulting terms used in the Euro-American
anthropological literature. -- M.S.]. Socialists in American history
have also recognized this, whether the class of women is seen as a
biological or social phenomenon. How could we neglect the unique class
of women?

Vasil argued that his stance was the opposite of such neglect -- for
example, a focus for D@W on the question of maternal capital. In
contrast, "liberal feminists" seem to have little interest in such
concerns of poor and working women.

Another speaker argued for men and women, "our top issues" may be
different. The special role of women must be recognized.

A speaker defined the question at hand: Is a Woman's Caucus
inappropriate?

Catty-Anne moved to call the question to a vote.

At this point, there were concerns that people were not clear on the
nature of the question to be voted on, or how the proposed Women's
Caucus would be defined and structured. For example, would it have
veto power over D@W decisions?

Noemi observed, in response to concerns that a Women's Caucus would
lead to "factionalism," that women "are not a faction, but reality."

Vasil replied that in D@W, "we already recognize historical reality."
The "fragmentation" caused by caucuses is antithetical to the "method
of success" in building socialism. He spoke of the experience of
raising a mixed-race child, and discrimination directed against those,
especially those who are People of Color or members of mixed-race
families, who have been convicted of even a felony not involving the
use or threat of violence, with frequent consequences of "family
separation." Thus the effort to build socialism requires a "victorious
method -- caucuses have failed."

A speaker, maybe Curtis, expressed "hope we find a compromise." This
or another speaker added that he was "not willing to endorse failed
systems."

Naomi [my notes say "in response to Curtis" -- M.S.], expressed her
concerns about "the failed system of passivity for women" if a Women's
Caucus or the like were not instituted.

Catty-Anne again tried to move the question: "Should there be a
Women's Caucus in D@W?"


8. Vasil's Concern: Women's Caucus Would Violate Bill of Solidarity

Vasil replied that "the question is how to compromise." He asserted
that adding a Women's Caucus to D@W would effectively amend basic
provisions of the Bill of Solidarity and aspects of D@W structure and
process ["Amendment 10" was cited -- M.S.] which at this point, after
the development of the D@W over two years, "are not available for
amendment." [Amendment 10 of the Bill of Solidarity, the "Conclusory
Clause," holds that the first ten amendments stated in this document
"are irreversible and protected from melioration." -- M.S.]

The question was again raised as to what role the Women's Caucus would
play, and whether its introduction, as explained by Vasil, would be
roughly equivalent to a proposal for unconstitutional legislation,
given the constraints of the Bill of Solidarity and the founding
design of D@W. Also, it was noted that a call for a vote at this
meeting would raise the issue of a proper quorum for such a radical
measure, since a number of D@W members were not aware of the proposal
or were unable to be present because of family responsibilities and
the like.

Catty-Anne said that there was "too much back story" to go into full
herstory of women's caucuses. She expressed concerns that men were
doing about 80% of the talking at this meeting, an entrenched
patriarchal pattern.

Someone [maybe also Catty-Anne?] observed that "women can talk things
over" in a caucus, and then share concerns and insights with the
overall group. Assertive women should not be treated like "disobedient
children."

Another speaker [Vasil?] noted that the first ten minutes of each
meeting would focus on "social equality." The Ethics Committee
proposal would also address equality concerns as part of D@W
standards.

Noemi observed that people need to know what the issues are about. 
Those disagreeing about a Women's Caucus have "the same goals," but
"different means."

Frank [if I am reading my notes correctly -- M.S.] raised the
"educational aspect" of making a link between "working class people"
and "the women's struggle."

Someone, very possibly Vasil, replied that D@W is an educational
organization [I would guess to qualify as a nonprofit organization for
tax purposes -- M.S.], and so "cannot advocate public policy." Thus a
question: "Is it legal to have caucus pushing for policy?"

Again, an advocate for the Bill of Solidarity structure pointed to
D@W's focus on "the gender wage gap," something not a high priority,
at least nowadays, for liberal feminist groups.


9. A View of Women's Caucus as Articulating Women's Concerns
   Within the Internal Structure and Dialogue of D@W

The question came up again as to how the caucus would be
implemented. I expressed my view that its purpose would be well
expressed by the Russian concept of _glasnost_ from the era of Mikhail
and Raisa Gorbachev -- a "voicedness" or articulation of women's
concerns and interests as part of the internal process of D@W. This
would not imply any special veto power -- although, if a Women's
Caucus helped to attract more women to D@W and make them feel at home
and heard, the presence of a representative and vocal women's
community would make D@W more democratic and representative of the
female majority in society.

10. The Women's Caucus Question is Left Unresolved --
    Motion to Adjourn

At this point the discussion had evidently run its course. The
question remained as to whether a Women's Caucus would be consistent
with the constitutional structure and founding intentions of D@W,
apart from any concerns about how advocacy projects by such a caucus
directed at the larger public might need to be constrained in order to
comply with tax or other regulations governing educational nonprofit
status.

Some members expressed regret that such a long and sometimes tense
discussion had taken time from what might be more constructive and
productive aspects of building D@W and the movement for socialism. At
least one speaker expressed concerns about whether newcomers
advocating for a Women's Caucus might be part of some attempt at a
hostile takeover of D@W -- not such a surprising concern, since indeed
such takeover attempts have occurred at various points in the history
of socialism and labor movements. I gave assurances that this was not
the intention.

A motion to adjourn was suggested and quickly adopted.

Margo Schulter, reporter

Notes of meeting transcribed on 17-18 April 2019